Wednesday, 30 September 2009

Remember that 'hugely popular' smoking ban? The one which Labour implemented, in contravention of their 2005 general election manifesto commitment to a partial ban, with which everyone would have been quite happy?

The ban which was unprecedented and revolutionary, in fact.

A smokefree England will see the single biggest improvement in public health for a generation

The smokefree legislation could prevent 40,000 people dying over the next decade, it added.

Yes, we know that's all bollocks, but it's the line that Labour have been trotting out these past two years or so.

You would think, therefore, would you not, that Gordon Brown would have included it in the list of towering Labour achievements in his speech yesterday, instead of throwing in a few which were a bit dodgy and nothing to do with Labour.

Not even a passive whiff of it, though. Why not?

Could it be anything to do with the fact that Labour are being hammered in their northern heartlands, wiped out in Wales, and rejected by formerly party faithful Londoners?

It is the ground-breaking, genocide-preventing, generational miracle which dare not speak its incontestably-popular name.

And Brown confirmed yesterday that whatever Labour say in public about their destruction of the working class smoker's leisure time, privately they know that vast swathes of their usual core vote despise them for it.

Tuesday, 29 September 2009

It's a deal, it's a steal, it's the sale of the century. Turn on the tax tap, Darling, Gordon's buying some friends.

A new £1bn business investment quango; guaranteed training for school leavers; increased investment in ... err ... just about everything; 10,000 new 'green' jobs which don't yet exist; promise to increase the minimum wage, child benefit, and child tax credit annually for the next five years; free childcare for 2 year olds; family intervention projects for 50,000 families; supervised housing for teen mums; doctors' results guaranteed within a week; police response guaranteed within 48 hours; and a free Rolex watch for everyone (OK, I made the last one up, but it carries the same sentiment).

And seeing as he has already saved the world, he's now going to single-handedly eradicate cancer! Yes, SuperBrown the finance god is now SuperBrown the global medical science god.

That's gonna cost a shitload of money, Gordon. In a recession too, remember. So how will it all be financed?

A higher tax on the very rich only, and a 0.5% increase in national insurance (isn't that meant solely for the NHS?) in 2011.

Hmm, seems a tad on the lightweight side. I think there is something Gordon isn't telling us. Oh, hold on, I just worked it out. This is all in the future (2011 again) so he doesn't have to honour any of it unless, in the next 7 months, there is a miracle, on the scale of the parting of the Red Blue Sea, that sweeps away voter disdain and returns his woeful party into office.

And in the extremely unlikely event of that happening, Labour can always just completely ignore their promises, breathe a sigh of relief with the key to Number 10 in their grubby mitts, and do something completely different.

It worked before, so why not again, eh Gordon? That referendum on PR won't look so attractive if Labour actually gain an unlikely election victory under the FPTP system, so it can be quietly swept under the carpet à la Lisbon, then back to the tax, tax, tax and spend; the war on free-thinkers; and the inflation of the public payroll.

And that Rolex? A shonky £2 fake, imported in bulk from a Bazaar in Istanbul, will suffice. Give it to them when 'Stenders is on, they'll never notice the difference.

He got one thing absolutely correct though. It was very stirring. So I'm nicking it as I say to you.

Never stop believing in the good sense of the British people.

Never stop believing we can move forward to a fairer, more responsible, more prosperous Britain.

Never stop believing we can make a Britain equal to its best ideals.

Never, never stop believing. And because the task is difficult the triumph will be even greater.

Now is not the time to give in but to reach inside ourselves for the strength of our convictions.

... now go back to your constituencies, and prepare to consign Labour to the food slops bin of history.

Monday, 28 September 2009

Obo pointed out a rather satisfying piece of Lefty exasperation today.

Labour has lost a generation

Love it yet? Cos I bloody well did. I want Labour to suffer very greatly for what they have done to our liberties and general way of life. A generation may be long enough for the calming to take effect ... perhaps. OK, maybe not. But onwards etc.

To be fair to Dave's Part, he appears to be very level-headed about it all.

LISTENING to a group of young people shouting ‘Labour, Labour, Labour; out, out, out’ while marching past Brighton’s conference centre yesterday took me back to when I was the same sort of age. We had a similar chant, you see. But back in the 1980s, the slogan was aimed at Maggie.

Instantly recognisable was the intensity of the hate on display, which was clearly of the kind that will last a lifetime. My twentysomething animosity to the Conservatives has been enough to secure decades of commitment to the far left, and I don’t doubt that a whole layer of students, young workers and a million or so NEETs in 2009 are in pretty much the same frame of mind about the party of which I am a member.

I’m assuming, if only from what I overhear apolitical workmates in a similar age bracket say, that this mood is generalised and not confined to the radical elements that each successive decade inevitably throws up.

Well spotted. Add circumspect and astute to my summation of Dave's article.

And frankly, New Labour might just as well have striven actively to cultivate the contempt of the young, as evidenced by everything imaginable from tuition fees to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the parliamentary expenses scandal.

It's not just the young, though. No-one but the terminally deluded can stomach Labour at the moment. Mandelson's boast of a 100% record in knowing future Labour election results (like your Gran who always knew the Grand National winner after the event, but would never tell you prior to the race) is a nonsensical piece of grandstanding. He knows full well that Labour are screwed in 2010.

If he felt Labour were going to lose in 1992, he must surely see the writing on the wall now that their chances are rapidly approaching nil. That would, of course, mean he was lying but, being a Labour politician, that doesn't surprise. Much as the few Labour faithful who bothered to stretch themselves out in the expanse of empty seats in Brighton wouldn't care if he was.

Dave's denouement told of a more encompassing malaise which is affecting Labour.

In recent posts I have detailed how New Labour has lost the north, and pointed to analysis that suggests it will be wiped out in Wales. For good measure, let me highlight this Evening Standard poll, which indicates that 17 of its 44 seats in London are set to go.

To lose regions such as this – the historic cradles of Labourism – is of course calamitous ...

And you know that this isn't just the loss of the young we are talking about. This is happening now. The future will hopefully be worse.

Perusing the comments of the lefties who contributed to Dave's recent articles, they were mostly of the same opinion. That of Labour shifting to the centre and forgetting the working man/woman/hermaphrodite. And THAT is entirely the problem.

The 'Tories will be bad for you' line doesn't work when you've told a road worker from Coventry that bitumen fumes are acceptable, but a fag in his working men's club isn't, so he must stop, and his club must close. 'Life will be worse under the Tories' isn't alluring to a banksman who saw his take home pay screwed by the withdrawal of the 10% band. Those evil Tories aren't so evil anymore when the party of the working man {pfft} have been spending their last few years in office attacking every meagre enjoyment that the working man holds dear.

Especially when they see huge sums being directed at office wallahs and pen-pushers, both local and national, on an increasing scale.

Believe me. Working people don't like bankers, but they hate the local council suits more heavily. Plastic plod, enviro-loons with a badge, clipboard-carrying jobsworths. These are easily-accessible hate figures for the working man.

Exactly the people Labour have been shovelling money towards while hammering the average Joe who just wants to do his job, have a pint without hassle, and relax.

And don't even get 'em started on diversity, immigration and all that guff.

How do I know this? Well, I'm one of them. A lucky one who can articulate and express my opinion, yes, but still basically from the same mould. I talk a lot, I get angry, but I am a product of a London Labour heartland. I still socialise with the people who Labour wish to target. I employ them. I see and hear their hissing hatred of New Labour. They are never asked for their opinion, and if they are, they would first have to find where to express it (a bloody difficult task in itself) before being drowned out by the stifling web of Labour-funded yes-men who are paid to spout exactly what Labour wish to hear.

There are a few crooks and plenty of outsized egos, politicians who have forgotten what it's like outside the Whitehall bubble, but this remains a party with the right instincts.

Instincts are useless when all Labour voters see is bullying.

Like Dave, Jackie realises that Labour have lost their way, and they are all just crossing their fingers and hoping that someone at the top may notice it soon.

It's not going to happen, which is why former Labour voters won't be voting Labour next year. Sorry Mandy, but you're onto a right loser this time. If you want to take me on, though, I will beat the bookies' best current price of 13/2 and offer you 10/1 on Labour gaining most seats at the next election, no limit. Can't say fairer than that.

This is another example of a huge disconnect in British politics. I feel that I may have been overly harsh now when I pointed out the difference between the Lib Dem membership and the parliamentary party. The Tories are equally out of touch with their party members. In a recent poll on Conservative Home, 58% reckoned the smoking ban required another look, and we have known for years that a majority of Tory party members wish that the EU would go jump in the Mediterranean. Yet all of that is ignored by a hierarchy who think they know better.

The result is three parties entirely divorced from their electorate. Which is why Labour voters are bleeding profusely to the BNP, why Tory voters are turning to UKIP, and why the Lib Dems are doing ... well ... not a lot, really.

If an incumbent or PPC wishes to succeed in 2010, all they have to do is listen to their core vote. It really shouldn't be that difficult. Just ignore focus groups and single interest lobbyists. Take your eyes away from the Marsellus Wallace briefcase-like glowing light of overarching glory.

Charging a minimum price for alcohol could save Scotland £950 million over the next decade by reducing crime, absenteeism and the burden on the NHS, researchers have concluded.

SNP ministers have published an academic report which indicates the measure would cut hospital admissions and deaths by 3,600 a year.

A level of 40p per unit would cost a moderate drinker £11 extra a year, but a heavy drinker £137 annually, it states.

Yes, you read that right.

The extra burden of 37p per day is going to turn a heavy drinker into a temperate saint. With no unintended consequences at all, like savings being made on family food budgets to compensate for example, or anything like that.

No. The alcoholic jocks will be suitably chastened, hold their hands up, and swarm to their nearest Al-Anon office for realignment.

Course they will.

I'm starting to believe that the biggest argument against Scots voting for independence is the SNP themselves. I've met 9 year old kids with a more mature view of the world around them.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has sued Kentucky Fried Chicken over a carcinogen, PhIP, which the nutrition advocacy group says is in KFC's new grilled chicken. PhIP is a compound on California's list of carcinogens that is created when meat is grilled.

"Grilled chicken can increase the risk of cancer, and KFC consumers deserve to know that this supposedly healthy product is actually just as bad for them as high-fat fried chicken," said Neal D. Barnard, M.D., the president of PCRM, on the group's Web site. "KFC should post warnings because its aggressively marketed new product harbors a chemical that increases the risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer and other forms of this lethal disease."

You know, the flame-grilled thingy. Like the darkened bits on your barbecued meat.

But KFC says the chemical poses no health risk.

"The chemical referenced by PCRM is a natural byproduct of grilling chicken and many other foods, and occurs whether such foods are grilled in any restaurant or even at home," KFC spokesman Rick Maynard said in a statement.

Yeah, that's the stuff. Cancerous now, doncha know. And you must be prevented from ever consuming anything you enjoy, if it poses so much as an inkling of a negligible risk, d'you see?

As the Lib Dems worked out years ago, you can promise anything you like if there is no possible chance that you will be asked to deliver. It would seem that Labour's national exec are aping this approach as the electorate schmoozing is continuing apace.

Sunday, 27 September 2009

With the erudite and eloquent Costigan Quist deciding to close down his blog, the Himmelgarten Cafe, earlier this week, I've finally been forced to get off my idle backside and tidy up my diminishing blogroll.

It was already becoming rather sparse following the apparent unannounced ceasing of activity from a few favourites. The thought-provoking Womble has stopped wombling free, as has Haddock. Also strangely silent is Banned, whilst Tory Totty's domain has disappeared altogether (a bit worrying, that one, as she was a teacher - hopefully there isn't anything sinister behind it).

So, deprived of my token Lib Dem, I've redressed the balance by adding Charlotte Gore and Liberal Vision instead - they are Lib Dems in name, at least. And as I like looking at funny pictures, Banned's disappearance will be more than adequately compensated by GOT and Lawson Narse.

You may have noticed I haven't added a Tory in response to Totty's departure. It's because they don't deserve more representation when they are cranking up their illiberal shite production line, another example of which was highlighted by the Pub Curmudgeon yesterday.

Well, that's one long overdue task done, one day I might get round to giving the whole blog a makeover. But then, I can be a right lazy bastard at times, and considering the fact that, to spend the meagre sum I have set aside, I'd need to find someone to design me something individual (suggestions welcome) and then apply it, don't expect to see much change anytime soon.

Phew! Time to crack open a can and put my feet up again after all that exertion.

Saturday, 26 September 2009

That this should all have come about by appallingly drawn-up illiberal Labour legislation is no surprise.

Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other's toddlers because they are not registered childminders. The close friends' private arrangement had let them both return to part-time jobs at the same company.

However, a whistleblower reported them to the education watchdog Ofsted and it found their informal deal broke the law.

An Ofsted spokesman confirmed it had been called in after a complaint.

Yes. A single complaint and the wheels have not only to come off, they must also be dismantled to their component parts, never to be reassembled.

Again, nothing even mildly eyebrow-raising under Labour's watch. The rules in question are part of a shit law, as with a huge proportion of the 3,000+ that have been instigated since 1997, and the fact that Ofsted have sprung into action to deny entirely innocent mothers the economic chance to work, instead of relying on the state, is also not anything we haven't seen before. Labour enjoy paying the population to do nothing worthwhile, much as they enjoy dictating to the population what they can and can't do.

No. What is worrying about this report (it is the Daily Mail, but are you certain this isn't going to catch on?) is the use of the term 'whistleblower'.

A whistleblower should be a positive description of a selfless person who exposes misdoing for the common good, often at huge personal risk to themselves. Not, and I repeat not, anything like the 'anonymous complainant', of which this is an example, who is a vindictive cunt deserving only of being ostracised by polite society.

I have written about the sinister advance of these rancid pond-lives before.

Add in the fact that this is no doubt another instance of the 'anonymous complainant' setting the whole comprehensive waste of time, effort, and money in motion, and we have an archetypal snapshot of a miserablist nation jam-packed full of odious, self-important, unthinking fuckknuckles.

It is heart-breaking to see so many anal and selfish Britons gutting each other over matters which really shouldn't bother them.

The anonymous complainant has been incubated and nurtured by Labour, almost as if they were the product of their own loins. Their every cuntish, spiteful whinge is positively encouraged with every new snitch-line that Labour unveil for the benefit of nasty cowardly curtain-twitchers everywhere, including elected ones.

In the society which Labour have created, an anonymous phone call can destroy a life/career/business either temporarily or permanently without any potential repercussions for the spurious or spiteful accuser.

It is entirely correct to keep the identity of a true whistleblower secret so that their evidence may be scrutinised properly.

However, the anonymous complainant, such as in this case, are a completely different matter. Make them give their name and address, with a warning that if their complaint is proven to be spurious and/or wastes resources they must suffer the consequences, and watch society become more tolerant and respectful of the lives of others in a very short space of time.

Friday, 25 September 2009

There is but one thing I am extremely grateful to anti-tobacco jihadists for. That being the way they have opened my eyes to the nonsense that is fed to us every hour, of every day, of every year, by those who advocate the removal of our freedoms in the name of their own particular righteous initiative.

With countries following Portugal's highly-successful experiment in decriminalising drug use, and London streets also being de-cluttered after 'road-sharing' was proven to be an astronomical improvement to both quality of life, and safety, everywhere it has been attempted, it's clear that liberal/libertarian policies are hugely advantageous.

Yet all of the main three parties in the UK (and the SNP in Scotland) do nothing but hector, nanny, restrict and ban at the behest of a variety of vested interest alarmists who crank up the urgency exponentially every waking hour.

Why? Because we have MPs who are too busy reading doomsaying statistics and computer-predicted outcomes of policies espoused by single interest lobbyists in suits, rather than investigating the motivation behind the nagging and pestering.

Those who like to drink in deserted post-smoking ban pubs because the air is cleaner won't ever bother to cast a second glance at the fake statistics, junk science, and downright lies that sit behind this daft counter-productive situation in which we now find ourselves. Which, of course, has not saved, and never will save, a single life. But if you scratch the surface, it's not hard to work out why they do it.

I have the tobacco control nutters to thank for helping me to notice that if someone says "the debate is over", it means that they don't want the debate to occur. I have them to thank for knowing that when the sentence "the evidence is overwhelming" is uttered, it normally means there isn't any.

Anti-tobacco nutters have therefore made me extremely sceptical of the global warming/cooling/changing theologians, considering both use the exact same methods. And this article tends to prove me correct in my hypothesis.

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, ...

There's the 'money' motivation.

... scientists at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world's first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It's known in the trade as the "Jones and Wigley" record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a "discernible human influence on global climate."

I suggest you read the whole thing, but there are some jaw-dropping objections and obstacles placed in front of those who wished to question the 'research'.

Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that "+/-" came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones's response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

This is the 'overwhelming' evidence remember. The stuff which has led to the debate being 'over'. Except no-one with a critical eye is allowed to inspect it ... the very point of peer review.

Further attempts were made.

In June 2009, Georgia Tech's Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn't have the data because he wasn't an "academic." So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre's blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

So, as with other areas which MPs are certain that the threat is real and imminent, it probably isn't. The evidence is not overwhelming quite simply because there is almost no evidence in the first place.

Righteous myths pass into QI style common misconceptions, legislators get into a confirmation bias frenzy of ever-escalating proscription of the public in pursuit of an unattainable goal (the 'I'm more proactive than you' syndrome), and no-one is allowed to nay-say for fear of being accused of attempting to inflict misery and death on their children or the third world's children.

And throughout all this, liberal values and the respect for individual freedoms are further rent asunder while paid-for 'researchers' continue to get rich pumping out falseties on behalf of those who wish to perpetuate whichever scam the holder of the purse strings holds dear.

A German trucker suspected of driving under the influence of drugs crashed his vehicle near Borås in western Sweden on Tuesday. He subsequently admitted to masturbating at the time of the accident.

The truck and trailer flipped over when he rammed his vehicle into the central division on route 40 south of Borås. The upturned vehicle blocked all traffic towards Gothenburg and one lane was closed in the direction of Borås.

Already amusing and headslapping as that is ...

The trucker, apparently unable to reach a satisfactory climax, then proceeded to continue to pleasure himself while in the midst of a police interrogation, according to the local Borås Tidning newspaper.

... because minor interruptions, such as overturned lorries and a grilling from the police, can be so irritating, can't they?

Wednesday, 23 September 2009

I don't think I will ever understand the Lib Dems. There is something very right about them, but at the same time very wrong. It was quite giggleworthy hearing Nick Clegg talk today of being 'ready to be PM' (sorry to set you all off again) and it did strike me that he would have more chance if he had a parliamentary party which wasn't disconnected from a fair proprtion of their membership.

In hindsight, my reason for going down to Bournemouth is hard to ascertain. It was perhaps curiosity, perhaps the lure of a libertarian fringe meeting (though I've been to similar before), or perhaps because I had extricated some freetime and was attracted by the offer of a free glass of wine (and the rest).

Having booked what turned out to be a rather handy hotel room, with breakfast bunged in for £45, at 10pm the night before, I set off around lunchtime with a borrowed Tomtom, my first time driving with a strangely distracting screen in front of me (glass half empty, someone will propose banning them soon, probably Lib Dems funny enough), and with a decal of Bart Simpson pulling a moon on the back of the company runaround knackered Focus. Sitting in the bar to access the WiFi, Lib Dems started wandering in après-conference - straight past the attendant latin barman and onto the smoking deck to light whopping cigars, roll-ups, you name it.

How very odd, thought I. This is the most anti-smoking party of the big three. The only one who included a blanket smoking ban in their 2005 manifesto (so liberal, huh?), unlike the party who actually passed it. And they have enthusiastic smokers in their ranks?

That was just a taster.

So I wandered for 2 minutes down the hill (told you the hotel was handy) to the Politics and Prohibition do, and was quaffing an overpriced Fosters when the excellent Chris Snowdon happened along, fresh from being harangued by a quite seriously deranged lunatic.

Having tapped his wallet for the next beverage, the meeting started, and my view of the Lib Dems became even more confused.

Almost 60 of the buggers turned up. Yellow lanyards were the new black, so much so that I almost wish I'd been wearing one. Almost.

This is the party which parrots the word 'ban' at almost every opportunity, yet here were freedom-lovers piling in and really enjoying the content.

Curiouser and curiouser.

The speakers, without exception, were ... err ... exceptional. Colin Eldridge from Liverpool was the target of most of the post-debate questions. Not surprising considering he is a proponent of the move to give films an 18 certificate if they contain smoking scenes. He put up a spirited defence, with such vigour that, large guy that he is, he must have partaken of a tray full of Red Bull before sitting down, though this attender (not attendee, it's just wrong) wondered if his message would have been tailored differently to a less libertarian audience. His motive was, of course, to protect the chiiildren. What's more, the kids asked for it and were in no way whatsoever guided to that point of view. Not at all. His speech can be listened to here (bad recording, turn the speakers up).

Belinda Brookes-Gordon kinda overran - a lot, but her detailed explanation of why the restrictions on the sex trade are quite ridiculous and counterproductive was well-received by members of the most proscriptive party in the parliamentary closed-shop triumverate.

It was all the more baffling when we crashed the Marriott Highcliff Hotel at blur o'clock. Wife-beater was the only draught available for southern beer philistines such as I, and boy was it consumed with enthusiasm. The only alcohol limit that was being observed was the one which said you've had too many when your cash runs out.

It finished at 5am, and only then because the staff really wanted to go home (big yawn), thanks very much. We're not talking a few trailing dregs of humanity here either, the place was rammed inside and out. Imbibing inside, puffing outside whilst trampling on broken wine glass detritus. I was starting to believe that I'm not such a night-owl after all in comparison to these animals.

And everyone I spoke to stressed the 'liberal' credentials of the Lib Dems. How very liberal they were themselves, too. And I fully believe them, if only because I saw it with my own self-abused double-seeing eyes.

I wandered lonely as a zig-zag staggering cloud back to my hotel thinking that this party is full of people who are as liberal as me {hic}. So why is the overwhelming message from their PLPs so very different? The only conclusion must be that the rank and file are intensely welcoming of liberal ideas and thinking, but the policymakers are, as Charlotte Gore points out on her blog, scared of fully expressing what the liberal amongst us want to hear.

We need our politicians to have the confidence and courage to re-frame this debate, to let a valid, reasoned argument be heard in public, in the mainstream and not just out here in the fringes.

This was playing on my mind as I sunk into an unbelievably deep sleep which resulted in my not stirring until 2 hours after my alarm had no doubt gone apoplectic.

Only in this healthist political climate can one read a story and be moved to laughter and anger in equal measure.

I've had stand up rows with lardy-arsed fuckwits who have condescendingly moralised about the "wonderful" smoking ban. One particularly wobble-bottomed cock, for example, in between breathing like Darth Vader deprived of Strepsils, laughed contemptuously when I suggested that his size would attract the attention of the righteous in due course.

Dr [X, see later], chairman of Tameside Primary Care Trust and a British Medical Association representative, said obesity is costing the north west region £680m a year.

One-sided statistic from a doctor? Tell me it ain't so.

He has called for new tax credits for people with a healthy weight, those who exercise and mothers who breast feed their babies as well as a tax on fatty foods. And he says we should stop giving people who are too fat to walk free motorised scooters and make all school dinners healthy.

Not his money, see? Expanding the public sector is no problem at all. Our taxes are an inexhaustable source. I mean, do these ridiculous dickwads ever cast a glance at the economic principle of marginal returns?

A £680m 'problem' will not be solved by spending even more taxpayer cash in throwing complications at an already over-expensive failure of tax policy?

Oh yeah, did you notice, it's yet another dictatorial NHS doctor? So what is this prick's provenance?

The former Ashton GP and British Medical Association representative says people need to change their lifestyles to cut their risk of diabetes, high blood pressure and many types of cancer.

The BMA again. Seriously, are we even surprised anymore?

Need to change? Listen, you quite astounding moron, as the Mash quite rightly points out, there is no 'we' here.

"Once again the BMA is talking about alcohol being a threat to 'public' health as if that's an actual thing.

"There is 'my' health, which is 'mine', and 'your' health which is 'yours', but there is no 'our' health. D'you see?

You look after your health, we will look after ours. We pay - a fucking lot of money, as it happens - for you tossers to fix us when we are damaged. What you do with your life is your own affair. What we do with ours is no damn business of yours.

Here is the very best part of the irony, though.

"For example, motorised scooters are provided free to morbidly obese patients with weight-dependent arthritis, when the best remedy for these people would be to walk through their pain or avoid excess weight gain in the first place."

This arrogant state-paid medic is advocating inflicting pain and social exclusion on the overweight to teach them a lesson. Let the bastards suffer is his approach. He doesn't attempt to differentiate between those for whom obesity is self-inflicted, merely gene-related, or even a consequence of dullard health staff who (as is rather common) misdiagnose. No, his sole method of determining the unworthy is an arbitrary BMI index score, such as the one which found a 5 year old kid, whose ribs were clearly visible, as obese back in May.

To fat twats everywhere who thought the smoking ban was a good idea because it didn't affect you, there is no sympathy whatsoever from me surrounding this new assault by the righteous - you asked for it. The difference is that I will enthusiastically fight for your right to respect, based on your merits or otherwise, as much as you failed to bother with mine.

To the quite hideous health service employee who is spouting this nonsense, you have a very short memory.

The human condition, doctor, as you should be aware, is predisposed to singling out those who are different, and by personal opinion therefore inferior, in some way to themselves. It is a vindictive trait which is shameful to the human race in general. Unfortunately, however much one tries to close down such hatred, new avenues will always emerge.

This doctor's attitude appears to be 'they're all the same, them fatties. None worthy of respect'.

For a doctor named Kailash Chand to single out a section of society as being homogenous and deserving of opprobium, irrespective of individual circumstances, is an incredible example of forgetfulness and hypocrisy.

I know it's not anything unusual anymore, but here is the cockwaffle that is almost certainly going to be all across Comrade Beeb in the next 24 hours (watch out especially for the Newsround angle).

Smoking ban heart gains 'massive'

Bans on smoking in public places have had a bigger impact on preventing heart attacks than ever expected, data shows.

Smoking bans cut the number of heart attacks in Europe and North America by up to a third, two studies report.

Just two?

Dr James Lightwood, of the University of California at San Francisco, led the Circulation study that pooled together 13 separate analyses.

Just 13?

His team found that heart attack rates across Europe and North America started to drop immediately following implementation of anti-smoking laws, reaching 17% after one year, then continuing to decline over time, with a 36% drop three years after enacting the restrictions.

Really? And not cherry-picked for suitability or anything?

Dr Lightwood said: "While we obviously won't bring heart attack rates to zero, these findings give us evidence that in the short-to-medium-term, smoking bans will prevent a lot of heart attacks.

"This study adds to the already strong evidence that second-hand smoke causes heart attacks, and that passing 100% smoke-free laws in all workplaces and public places is something we can do to protect the public."

It proves nothing of the sort. It just proves that this guy is a lying cunt.

The largest study of this kind, comprising 217,023 heart attack admissions and 2 million heart attack deaths in 468 counties in all 50 states of the USA over an eight-year period, came to this conclusion, which, strangely enough, the BBC didn't bother to mention, either at the time it was published, or now as a counterpoint to this latest poppycock.

we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases. An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature.

Perhaps the study was too big to be taken seriously by the Beeb. Why report a comprehensive analysis of the efficacy or otherwise of smoker bans when you can propagandise loudly on just two which draw on a mere thirteen carefully selected data sets?

And this is why you should never, ever, give money to the British Heart Foundation.

Ellen Mason, of the British Heart Foundation, said: "These studies add to the growing evidence that a ban on smoking in public places seems to have a positive impact on heart attack rates, which is clearly good news for our nation's heart health."

No, Ellen, these studies add to the growing trend of bastardising science in the pursuit of money by disgusting organisations like the BHF. You fucking KNOW that THE major worldwide study had found no correlation between smoking bans and heart attack admissions of any size (the possibility of which is scientifically and statistically impossible anyway) but you ignored it.

You are corrupt, you are disgusting, you deserve nothing but contempt.

Yet the BBC still repeat fantasy bullshit from shysters like this.

And, at pain of fines and imprisonment, they make us pay for it.

Please. Spread this around. The BBC is circulating proven lies and it really has to stop.

Sunday, 20 September 2009

MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.

Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for insurance and compensation purposes.

And for why? The environment, of course. Good grief.

Again, one must wonder at the sanity of Labour policy-makers. And again, there can be only two possible explanations.

1) Labour simply don't ever want to be elected again. And while I would applaud their selfless political suicide for the good of the country if that were the case, it's a bit difficult to imagine that such control freaks and power mad, dictatorial tax spongers are that community conscious, so it only leaves us with ...

2) Labour are so mired in fake charities; self-appointed, state-paid moral guardians; personal-enrichment obsessed quangoistas; personal politics motivated civil servants, and single issue fruitcakes, that they believe - and I mean truly believe - that the millions who are turned off or enraged at their lunatic ideas are unrepresentative of the population.

Either that, or they have invested all the Labour Party membership fees in 'no win, no fee' solicitor stocks.

So motorists join small businessmen, large businessmen, householders, smokers, drinkers, chocolate-lovers, teens, the elderly, parent volunteers, home schoolers, and Daniel Hannan, on Labour's bingo card of people to denormalise and mark out for government spite.

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Daily Mail comments section on Friday about this.

Parents who give their child the occasional glass of wine with their meal could be turning them into binge drinkers, scientists have warned.

Growing numbers of middle class parents are following the example of French families and allowing their offspring to drink wine with their meals, in the belief it will teach them to drink responsibly.

But now a study has found children who are introduced to alcohol by their parents are more likely to grow into problem drinkers later in life.

Can't say I was too surprised. It's just another step along the hearts and flowers and pretty butterflies adorned avenue of alcohol denormalisation.

It is led by the World Health Organisation, who in their ultimate self-delared wisdom, judged a long time ago that alcohol is intrinsically evil and must be beaten with a big pointy stick. They produce 'Framework' policies on a number of things they don't like, and their stated aim with regard to alcohol and children [pdf] is.

All children and adolescents have the right to grow up in an environment protected from the negative consequences of alcohol consumption and, to the extent possible, from the promotion of alcoholic beverages.

Very laudable, except that there are no grey areas in their view of life. Merely black and white - alcohol bad, temperance good. Quality of parenting is not taken into account, neither are any other considerations.

Keeping children alcohol free and delaying the onset of drinking are safer.

The WHO dole out billions in research grants, and if you come up with the correct results, you are very likely to be given another gig. This particular study was performed by Washington University in Missuori. On US subjects? Not on your nelly. For some reason they chose twins from Australia. Sniffy? I should coco.

And if someone - I dunno, maybe a tedious saggy-arsed prodnose, for example - wants a job with the WHO ...

If, as seems likely, [Liam Donaldson] is moved out of Richmond House next year, a plum job awaits him at the World Health Organisation. In which case it would be a fitting ending for a man who thinks in terms of populations. The most far-reaching of public servants would at last get to serve the most far-reaching of publics.

Children under the age of 15 should not be allowed to drink alcohol under new official guidelines that will even rule out a a glass of wine at dinner with parents. The controversial advice, expected from the Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson, today, is set to spark fierce debate on the best way to encourage sensible drinking.

It's all rather predictable, isn't it?

And don't think that with Donaldson out of the picture, post-GE 2010, that this will just be quietly dropped. The Tories have James Brokenshire, a pliant berk who is already making noises of which the WHO would be most appreciative.

Not very long till five is changed to fifteen in this advice on the government's web-site, methinks.

Under five years old

It is illegal to give an alcoholic drink to a child under five except under medical supervision in an emergency.

The Mail readership pointing out that French kids are routinely exposed to the nation's viniculture at an early age, with negligible negative effects, is immaterial. The WHO don't want Britain aping France and being mature about alcohol. They will instead, eventually, pressure France to fall into line once other nations have been browbeaten into righteous compliance.

As a footnote. Guess how many people worldwide voted for the apppointment of World Health Organisation policy-makers. Go on, have a stab.

Saturday, 19 September 2009

The one thing that is politically certain in this country is that whatever illiberal nonsense the Lib Dems spout, it's not going to actually happen. They being terminally unelectable and all that, despite a propensity to jump on every bandwagon whilst simultaneously attempting to sit on a multitude of fences when tackled.

It's working wonders for them electorally, of course. Despite Labour imploding, their Euro election share fell by 1.2%.

Perhaps Labour have noticed this rejection of social democratic policies, for they have embarked on an odd charm offensive in recent days. In many areas, they are actually proposing to ease up on kicking us in the balls for a bit. Yes, seriously.

However, as Letters From A Tory pointed out, it's easy to promise such things when they aren't going to be in government anyway.

•Gordon Brown promised union leaders on Tuesday that he would legislate for new employment rights for our 1.3 million agency and temporary workers in the next parliamentary session, but internal government documents suggest that they will not come into force until after April 2011

•Ministers admitted this week that the Government cannot afford to meet a previous manifesto commitment to extend maternity leave from nine months to a year, so it’s been postponed indefinitely

•The much-vaunted statutory crackdown on pubs and clubs through a new mandatory code of conduct has been delayed indefinitely, even though Gordon Brown promised to bring it in just five months ago

•The implementation of a ban on cigarette displays in supermarkets will not come into force until 2011

•The new right for fathers to claim up to six months’ paternity leave is also being delayed until April 2011

2011 features quite prominently, does it not? In their dreams mainly. Go Fourth is a nifty slogan, but the electorate will be finishing that biblical sentence come the next election.

As the Lib Dems worked out years ago, you can promise anything you like if there is no possible chance that you will be asked to deliver. It would seem that Labour's national exec are aping this approach as the electorate schmoozing is continuing apace.

Jack Straw calls for heroin on NHS

JACK STRAW, the justice secretary, has called for the NHS to give out heroin on prescription to addicts for whom other forms of treatment have failed.

He claims “imaginative” solutions to hard-drug abuse are needed and believes there could be “huge benefits” to issuing the drug to chronic addicts.

Good call, Jack. Chances of it being enacted before the next election? Nil. Especially when your party are well down the road of criminalising legal substances too.

ED BALLS, the schools secretary, last night became the first minister to spell out how Labour would make spending cuts, announcing plans to axe thousands of school staff and restrain public sector pay.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Balls detailed more than £2 billion of cost savings worth 5% of the total schools budget.

“It is going to be tougher on spending over the next few years,” said Balls. The squeeze will begin after 2011.

So ... err ... more fantasy.

These bribes will continue to be fed to the MSM in a vain attempt by Labour to reverse out of the cul-de-sac into which their policies have chauffeured them.

Some will be fooled and believe that the party has changed, that they are beginning to care about those they have demonised and punished in 13 brutal years at the helm. The more enlightened will remember that even when faced with a potential victory, Labour ditch promises very quickly once elected.

We will, fortunately, never get to see if the Lib Dims would implement their daft policy ideas. However, with Labour, we have proof that they lie on a regular basis and once elected, just do as they damn well please.

It's a clever ploy from Labour to limit the destruction which they have brought upon themselves by way of reliance on yes men, fake charity input, omission of the public on decision-making, and bare-faced spin. The reaction is to follow the route of the Lib Dems and promise where it is clear they have no will, or capacity, to deliver.

Voting for some mythical Lib Dim initiative is merely jolly naïveté, not too damaging. However, being taken in by Labour promises is dangerously irresponsible. They have form. Don't fall for it.

Huge pressures are being put on existing care services in the UK as people live longer and need more resources to look after them, he said.

Mr Burnham said: "The current care system is creaking at the seams and can't cope."

So put that fag out, chuck the cans of Carlsberg in the bin, stop buying Olde Oak ham, ban 7up from the house, throw out your frying pan, start running marathons, stock up on lentils and mangetout, buy a smoothie maker, sleep in the spare room and go everywhere by bike.

Then you too can spend your last years on this island, in a 'creaking' care system, having your needs ignored or being treated as an inconvenient annoyance.

Or, if Burnham's plan is successful, your reward for living so cleanly will be to pay a government body for longer than if you had just ignored all the hectoring and enjoyed your life.

Mr Burnham added: "We're having a Big Care Debate in England and asking people how they want to pay for care - have an insurance system, something that's comprehensive or just part paid for."

Friday, 18 September 2009

Via England Expects, more evidence of the growing political trend in attempting to silence opposition rather than debating the subject matter.

Micheál Martin, the Irish Foreign Minister, doesn't like the way the democratically-elected Freedom and Democracy Group are campaigning for a NO vote in Lisbon Treaty referendum 2 - 'In Brussels, no-one can hear you scream NO' (soon to be a Lucas-esque polyology if the stout-guzzlers keep telling the EU to feck off)

In particular, he doesn't like the campaign flyer pointing out some negative facts about the treaty and the machinations of the EU itself.

As I have said before, people are welcome to express but this type of deeply cynical behaviour should have no place in our debate.

Yes. That's right. If you disagree, you have no place in the debate. Millions of votes throughout Europe don't afford you that priviliege in a two horse race. It should be overwhelming approval of Europe or ... err ... overwhelming approval of Europe that you espouse in referendum literature.

If the claims are so outlandish, Micheál, why not just rebut them? Surely a simple task even for an addled pro-EU turf-sniffer.

Get thee in the back seat, inconvenient facts, you're not welcome while MM drives this nation into the sewage farm. Right so.

UPDATE:Ollie Cromwell's blog has a neat little widget regarding the Irish referendum. I think the message is clear.

I am writing to ask whether your company would be interested in an idea for a book which I had recently. The theme of the book would be similar to the challenge/travel adventures of authors like Dave Gorman. The idea came to me during a recent visit to the doctor's in which I asked if I should take off my pants to show the doctor the rash on my leg. She asked if she could see without, I said yes, to which she said "In that case, no". But doctors have to see anything you show them, and so my idea is to see how many people I can get to see my penis without getting arrested.

As I said, doctors would be an easy start, but there's only so many time you can do that in the same surgery without getting a ban, which is what would make the challenge interesting. My immediate thoughts are then GUM clinics, life modelling, art installations, etc., but I would be willing to push the boundaries a bit for the good of the book and await your suggestions.

Initial ideas for working titles include "Do You Want To See My Cock?", "Can I Show You Something?" and "Balls To The Wind". I think we could probably find something better. I have also done a couple of sketches for the cover if you want to see them, (don't worry they're tastefully done).

I was thinking we could do this project as a charity tie-in, to raise money for testicular cancer, for example. I don't have cancer, but am aware of the importance of raising attention for the cause.

Thursday, 17 September 2009

Just to prove that it's not just our 'doctors' who are as mad a bag of rabid ferrets, get this from the USA.

Doctors press for 'cola tax' in bid to fight child obesity

The battle to contain the global obesity crisis stepped up a gear yesterday as American public health experts demanded a sugar tax on the country's most popular source of refreshment – sweetened carbonated drinks and fruit juices.

In what is certain to become a world-wide debate on the use of economic sanctions to tackle obesity, a group led by academics from Yale and Harvard universities proposed a "cola war", with a 1 cent tax per fluid ounce on sweetened beverages, raising the price of the average can of cola by 15 to 20 per cent.

Yep, that's correct. A war on cola.

An evil peddler of kiddie narcotics, pictured in December

We've had the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the war on tobacco, the increasingly intensive war on alcohol. Now, the new front has emerged. And as usual, before anyone gets to discuss it, the evidence is overwhelming.

"The reasons to proceed are compelling. The science base linking the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages to the risk of chronic disease is clear. Research suggests a tax... would have strong positive effects on reducing consumption. We believe that taxes on beverages that help drive the obesity epidemic should and will become routine," the experts say in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Boy! Thank God this is restricted to the land of the {cough} free. I know we normally get hysteria like this eventually, but there's usually something like five years lead time for us to fight it (like CAMRA and the drinks industry didn't).

Not so, I'm afraid, freedom-lovers.

British nutrition specialists backed the move but said other economic measures, such as a tariff on sugar imports, could have the same impact but be less politically controversial.

Yep, it's not about whether this is a good idea or not, they are past that already. They are now on to how best to approach it. Do you remember being consulted?

Tam Fry, spokesman for the UK National Obesity Forum, said: "We have got to start thinking very seriously about taxing unhealthy food and drink as part of the drive to improve the nation's health and cut obesity. The amount of sugar that goes into these soft drinks is staggering and it has a double whammy, increasing obesity and rotting teeth."

What a joyless carrot-munching cunt you are, Tam. If you came asking me for money to spout this shit, I'd tell you to go jump in the nearest car crusher. However, I've a nagging feeling that the government have already paid for your hectoring on my behalf.

Jack Winkler, professor of nutrition policy at London Metropolitan University, said: "I support this. It would be a massive public acknowledgement about the danger sugar poses to health."

Fuck my boots! The Fonz's bastard anglo brother is in on it too. We're totally shafted.

But he proposed raising the price of sugar permanently by reforming the world commodity markets. Imposing tariffs, which are invisible, would be much better than raising taxes, he said.

Now, I've heard about, debated with, and personally tackled, some nasty healthist fuckweasels in my time, but I really don't remember ever coming across one who advocated changing world commodity markets for their own small-minded, dictatorial ends with a view to making it less than visible to the public. In a country which laughably calls itself a democracy, no less.

It takes one hell of a brass-balled, hellbound goat-fellater to suggest such a staggeringly totalitarian approach, don't you think?

Almost as an addendum comes the still small voice of sanity and common sense.

And what about Lee Evans as Minister for Energy? Al Murray's pub landlord as Health Secretary? Ali G might knock up a respectable medallion from the Privy Seal and I've no doubt Brüno would enjoy the office of Chief Whip. If I could stretch to resurrection, Bernard Manning as Minister for Women and Equality? Alistair McGowan as - well, anyone he fancies really - that is his game.

It might be a bit of a shambles but at least we could all be chuckling while Rome burns.

A shambles? I think the word you are looking for is 'improvement' ... even more so considering Manning is dead. There may be teething problems, but a reshuffle could always put Al Murray in charge of Foreign Policy instead.

There is one flaw, though. Louisa still has that one-eyed living disaster area in charge. You know, the one who lies his arse off for a living.

Wednesday, 16 September 2009

Manchester City Council has called on the Home Secretary to ban a right-wing protest planned for next month.

Now, leaving aside whether one agrees with the EDL protestors or not, if Alan Johnson has the power to ban a protest entirely, for whatever reason, what does it say about our ancient right to free assembly?

Councillor Jim Battle, deputy leader of Manchester City Council, said: ''Wherever the so-called English Defence League have gone, there has been violence and disruption to ordinary people who just want to go about their business."

This part of the councillor's reasoning is perfectly understandable. It would seem that he wishes to minimise disruption and danger to local residents, a laudable aim.

It's then that he goes a bit off the rails.

"These people do not have a legitimate cause – they merely wish to vilify, insult, intimidate and provoke one section of our community. That isn't protest or legitimate democratic debate and it certainly is not welcome in Manchester."

How is Councillor Battle qualified to look into the minds of those who wish to protest and decide if their motivation for it is legitimate or not? He may feel that they are merely out to cause trouble, but that is a matter which can be addressed, prior to the event, by the police liaising with the organisers and also with those who fear that they may be vilified or provoked.

Mr Battle goes on to say that the council is 'standing together with faith groups and city centre traders', yet have they discussed their concerns with the protest organisers? If so, there is no indication of it. If not, then they are coming at this from a one-sided perspective.

He states that:

"Wherever the so-called English Defence League have gone, there has been violence and disruption to ordinary people who just want to go about their business."

That is undoubtedly true, but the police have three decades of experience in handling groups of football-style hooligans, which the troublesome element of the EDL appear to be. The rozzers would be very confident in their ability to contain such a threat.

The problem, as far as one can see, at previous EDL events, has been that they have succeeded in provoking a reaction from an opposing faction who are equally enthusiastic at the prospect of a 'right good ruck, innit'. So wouldn't Manchester Council be better served 'standing together with faith groups' in advising those who might react adversely to the EDL protest to just not bloody well do it.

That way, the right to assembly would be protected and the result would just be a bit of shouting and football chant rhetoric.

Once we start banning such rallies on the basis of a perceived illegitimacy of those involved, it opens the door to protests being prohibited simply because we don't agree with the point of the protest itself.

4 Solutions Displays cannot produce, deliver and install for the minimal dollars you are publishing nor can any other covers for the retailer be represented in the fashion we are being quoted. We would ask that you remove 4 Solutions Displays from any of your promotional materials as the numbers are misrepresenting the actually (sic) costs to a wide base of retailers in the UK.

Hence this is already misleading information from Darzi (or those who advise him) in pursuit of a favourable result in a {cough} democratic debate in the Lords.

Lord Darzi was well aware of this prior to the Lords vote. If his advisers were a little late on such an important matter to 50,000 retailers, then perhaps someone may have pointed him in the direction of the Evening Standard who highlighted it the week before.

The Ministry of Health asked anti-smoking organisation ASH (which is hardly a disinterested party) to check on the cost, and it claimed the figure for the gantries was just £120. This figure was sent by health minister Lord Darzi to every member of the House of Lords.

So how did Darzi stumble upon this derisory cost to retailers when the Health Bill's own Regulatory Impact Assessment had indicated a cost running into thousands?

Simple really. It's because the Department of Health didn't like that big number and sought to reduce it. To do so, they seconded a Cancer Research UK bod to their offices and liaised with accomplished lie manufacturers ASH to come up with something more easy to swallow.

ASH found the supplier, looked for the smallest gantry possible and then corrupted the information in four, count 'em, four ways.

1) They didn't like the cost of permanent solutions, so they asked for ones which would wear out in a couple of months.

2) They then asked what discount could be offered for bulk purchases. Beder gave them the cost for 1,500 units purchased at the same time.

3) ASH ignored delivery and installation costs.

4) They also ignored the cost that was conveyed to them in favour of their own shonky calculation. A lie, as Beder mentions.

We quoted £200 (not £120) for the materials necessary to fit a standard small gantry, based on a minimum purchase of 1500 stores.

This bulk purchase quote does not include the cost of shipping, installation, or specific changes to size and dimensions.

In short, the only way that Lord Darzi's briefing could be accurate would be if 1500 independent corner shops, with identical gantry sizes (which just happen to be exactly the same size as the covers offered), were to club together and buy a temporary solution to the government's ridiculous law, without any cost to have it delivered or installed, they would be able to comply for a couple of months before they had to club together again to replace it ... and it still wouldn't be as cheap as £120.

I don't know about you, but I'd call that a pretty misleading statement.

Showering may be bad for your health, say US scientists, who have shown that dirty shower heads can deliver a face full of harmful bacteria.

Apparently, showering is now proven to be almost as dangerous as giving money to rubber band flickers in lab coats with nothing better to do than to take whatever cash is lobbed their way and dream up the next scare story.

As far as possible, Mr Cameron will have to take the responsibility for deciding public expenditure away from the quangos. Spending public money ought to be controlled by accountable elected bodies, either Parliament or local authorities. He will not be able to cut public expenditure in a considered way unless he greatly reduces the number of quangos.

In your dreams, Moggy-boy. Cameron's lot are paid-up members of the 'we know better than you' righteousocracy. And tomorrow, at 8pm on Radio 4, they will prove it.

Danny Finkelstein explores how and to what extent the increasingly popular and important ideas of social psychology and behavioural economics can be exploited to make us behave better - to recycle more, conserve energy, litter less, eat healthily, drink less, and turn up for our medical appointments. It is becoming a more significant issue, as the economic situation means that politicians are looking for ways of achieving public policy outcomes that do not cost a great deal of money.

The programme examines how these ideas are being considered by David Cameron and George Osborne and includes interviews with leading American thinkers whose ideas are now spreading to Britain - Richard Thaler, co-author of Nudge, who has been advising the Tories; and Bob Cialdini, author of the best-selling book Influence, who spoke at a seminar in Downing Street.

Save money by scything through the multitude of quangoes? Get the fuck outta here. Cameron and Osborne are going to need them to carry on the hectoring and denormalisation process initiated by Labour.

Your personal choices are merely an irritating cost to the nation, they must be curtailed. There's no point Cameron tackling a possible backlash from unelected quangoes and civil servants when a timid, Labour-bullied nation is predisposed to being bent over and brutally relieved of their self-determination, now is there?

Is it just because it's Monday that today has been filled with an overwhelming gloom of reading about the exploits of seriously sick-minded and selfish arse biscuits? Or do we have to put up with this cunting nonsense forever?

Ed Balls, the alarmist boggle-eyed cretin previously credited debited with such monumentally hectoring initiatives such as closing down food businesses because they are near to parks - and kids play in parks - ergo kids will get fat if said business is allowed to remain, has now decided to look again at the vetting procedure which has caused a huge, and rightfully so, shitstorm of condemnation.

What he has not done, of course (because he is Labour, and Labour never do anything for us per se, merely for their own dogmatic ideology), is to work out that the country have not asked for it, do not want it, and are quite happy with how things are bowling along quite nicely as they are, thank you very much.

I mentioned before that when in a hole, they can't relinquish their grasp of the spade, and this surely proves it beyond doubt. I mean, fuck my old worn-out Burton boots, if even uber-kiddie-bubble-wrapper Esther Rantzen tells the odious cock-sockets that they are wrong, but their reaction is to merely 'look again' and throw it back into the spin machine to be recycled in a slightly different form, what chance any of us?

How are we supposed to beat these quite astonishing dictatorial shitsticks? They regularly find some obscure statistic which shows a 50.5% agreement (almost always fiddled and manipulated to be so) with any one of their daft policies, whether it was in their manifesto or not, then trumpet it as a resounding mandate for bringing in the law they wish to inflict, and, according to them, the people have spoken and Labour have listened.

However, when a huge majority tell them to take their sorry arses away to a cave and club each other to death with their own heavy duty filing cabinets, they somehow forget, or dispense with, the will of the people entirely.

Boy, they have truly learned from the EU constitution/treaty sleight of hand, eh?

Throw into the mix that one of their prime state-funded fake charities has been busy today spreading false statistics about one of the other laws that they passed without even a hint of electoral mandate, and it's a quite stunning day in the continuing Labour war against the public.

Labour are quite unutterably horrendous and it's vital that they are destroyed comprehensively as an electoral force.

Please. Always, always make sure you remember the egregious assaults on our freedoms in the past few years (which are accelerating the more we approach election day) if you, or anyone you know, is ever tempted to vote for these hideous, community-damaging Labour cunts again.

Further reading:

Charlotte Gore on the spurious definitions of child 'abuse' Labour loons are trying to stop.

Libby Purves in the Times with an excellent piece on the idiocies and lack of common sense with this Balls-up (pun intended).

Velvet Glove, Iron Fist, well, because if you haven't favourited it already as a handy portal for debunking Labour healthist bullshit, you should have done.

Vijay Patel, policy adviser for the NSPCC children's charity, also sees the need for a review. "Some people use home education to hide. Look at the Victoria Climbié case. No one asked where she was at school."

So to clarify things. Parents teaching their own kids at home is suspect and all such arrangements should be treated as potential child abuse opportunities until proven otherwise. However, volunteers taking other people's kids to events is 'perfectly safe and normal'.

Great. Clear as mud.

It's good that the NSPCC have come out with condemnation of the government's latest daft plan, though. I mean, how on earth did our MPs become so paranoid? Who has been bending their ear with inaccurate and alarmist information?

How the NSPCC faked child abuse stories to generate cash

The Advertising Standards Authority slammed the NSPCC for its actions.

In a damning summary, it upheld the claims of three recipients who complained the letter looked like a genuine example taken from a case of a child who had been abused, which could cause distress to young children who might have picked them up.

In May, the NSPCC ran a newspaper ad campaign to coincide with the Baby Peter case telling all and sundry that ...

The latest research reports that 1 in 6 children are sexually abused before they reach the age of 16.

Seems a tad alarmist, I'd say. That's because it is.

It's clear that the 1 in 6 figure is astonishingly over-stated as regards the dangers that parents fear from paedophilia. Saying that 1 in 6 kids are being 'sexually abused' is a sound-bite to strike the fear of Ian Huntley into any parent, and I venture to suggest that the NSPCC fully intended their figures to be taken that way.

Do you reckon the NSPCC might have conveyed this hysterical stuff to MPs at some point? Loudly? If so, it would explain a lot.